Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
The penguin colony catastrophe is normal. If it didn’t happen that would be unusual.http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Poor comment.
"Catastrophe is normal" oxymoron for a start.
For fecks sake, if you want to argue at least put some brainpower into it.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 3rd May 22:59
"Quite why the sea-ice platform on the edge of the Brunt shelf has failed to regenerate is unclear. There is no obvious climate signal to point to in this case; atmospheric and ocean observations in the vicinity of the Brunt reveal little in the way of change.
But the sensitivity of this colony to shifting sea-ice trends does illustrate, says the team, the impact that future warming in Antarctica could have on emperor penguins in particular.
Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice is reduced to the extent that computer models envisage."
How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?
potholer54 Published on 9 Apr 2019
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk
potholer54 Published on 9 Apr 2019
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk
Halb said:
How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?
potholer54 Published on 9 Apr 2019
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk
Maldives under water? No more snow? I don't think any of their alarmist predictions have come true, so I'm guessing it's 0%. Just like Paul Ehrlich before them.potholer54 Published on 9 Apr 2019
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk
That doesn't stop them still claiming we have twelve years to save the planet. Why twelve? 2030?
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
The penguin colony catastrophe is normal. If it didn’t happen that would be unusual.http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Poor comment.
"Catastrophe is normal" oxymoron for a start.
For fecks sake, if you want to argue at least put some brainpower into it.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 3rd May 22:59
I mean....crying for birds that live and die in an extremely harsh environment....really?
You’re post is hilariously fatuous and overly emotional, so fits perfectly within the climate science field...keep posting please. On this forum too.
Halb said:
How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?
potholer54 Published on 9 Apr 2019
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk
That's quite a compelling presentation.potholer54 Published on 9 Apr 2019
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk
You'd need a week just to read and research all the comments. Very interesting - thank for posting.
grumbledoak said:
Maldives under water? No more snow? I don't think any of their alarmist predictions have come true, so I'm guessing it's 0%. Just like Paul Ehrlich before them.
That doesn't stop them still claiming we have twelve years to save the planet. Why twelve? 2030?
"This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.That doesn't stop them still claiming we have twelve years to save the planet. Why twelve? 2030?
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."
- Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - 12th May 2019
Like I said....
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
You don't learn do you. If you locate the section in AR5 that that sentence is lifted from you'll see the same distinctions between NH and SH are made as already posted many times now.
In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
Erm it was rejected because (my bold)In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
Rejection notes said:
Every single piece of work that uses observational data sets could be used to criticise model performance. The
conclusion that models are imperfect is, as a result, hardly new or illuminating. Models, nevertheless, encapsulate the best of our current understanding, however incomplete, and so their output need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt.
What is illuminating is that we are to take models "seriously" and with "a pinch of salt".conclusion that models are imperfect is, as a result, hardly new or illuminating. Models, nevertheless, encapsulate the best of our current understanding, however incomplete, and so their output need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt.
Contradictions cannot exist in nature (the only thing unnatural is a contradiction) so add this one to the rapidly growing list of contradictions in Climate science (tm) .
It's easy this 'foul play' stuff isn't it
TX.
mikal83 said:
LoonyTunes said:
Cold said:
About a foot of snow has fallen on the Mediterranean island of Corsica over the last day or so.
And your point is...?
grumbledoak said:
That doesn't stop them still claiming we have twelve years to save the planet. Why twelve? 2030?
any later and we will be well into the next cool phase of the amo. that will see northern hemisphere temps drop and due to the jiggery pokery with the various temperature series it will likely be a fairly significant drop. if it wipes out all or most of the warming since the late eighties the case for natural cycles will be hard to dismiss, making the entire climate science community look a bit stupid.wc98 said:
grumbledoak said:
That doesn't stop them still claiming we have twelve years to save the planet. Why twelve? 2030?
any later and we will be well into the next cool phase of the amo. that will see northern hemisphere temps drop and due to the jiggery pokery with the various temperature series it will likely be a fairly significant drop. if it wipes out all or most of the warming since the late eighties the case for natural cycles will be hard to dismiss, making the entire climate science community look a bit stupid.
ks.Some will look stupid alright but it won't be climate scientists it'll be the online armchair scientists who once read a book.
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
grumbledoak said:
That doesn't stop them still claiming we have twelve years to save the planet. Why twelve? 2030?
any later and we will be well into the next cool phase of the amo. that will see northern hemisphere temps drop and due to the jiggery pokery with the various temperature series it will likely be a fairly significant drop. if it wipes out all or most of the warming since the late eighties the case for natural cycles will be hard to dismiss, making the entire climate science community look a bit stupid.ks.Some will look stupid alright but it won't be climate scientists it'll be the online armchair scientists who once read a book.
bit early to be calling “hogwash and bks” ?dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
The penguin colony catastrophe is normal. If it didn’t happen that would be unusual.http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Poor comment.
"Catastrophe is normal" oxymoron for a start.
For fecks sake, if you want to argue at least put some brainpower into it.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 3rd May 22:59
"Quite why the sea-ice platform on the edge of the Brunt shelf has failed to regenerate is unclear. There is no obvious climate signal to point to in this case; atmospheric and ocean observations in the vicinity of the Brunt reveal little in the way of change.
But the sensitivity of this colony to shifting sea-ice trends does illustrate, says the team, the impact that future warming in Antarctica could have on emperor penguins in particular.
Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice is reduced to the extent that computer models envisage."
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 18th May 12:20
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
The penguin colony catastrophe is normal. If it didn’t happen that would be unusual.http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Poor comment.
"Catastrophe is normal" oxymoron for a start.
For fecks sake, if you want to argue at least put some brainpower into it.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 3rd May 22:59
I mean....crying for birds that live and die in an extremely harsh environment....really?
You’re post is hilariously fatuous and overly emotional, so fits perfectly within the climate science field...keep posting please. On this forum too.
"You’re post is hilariously fatuous and overly emotional, so fits perfectly within the climate science field...keep posting please. On this forum too."
I was just pointing out an oxymoron from you.
This is an interesting graph
The Antarctic was always increasing in sea ice extent over the last few years compared to the Arctic which has a general drop over the last few years. Both are different. the Arctic is bound by land over much of it's freeze and melt season, the Antarctic is not, and has a global ocean going around it, so very different for how sea ice expands and contracts over a season.
The interesting thing is that the Antarctic expanded rapidly in sea ice extent in the early 2010's and now has reallysunk back recently. Polar scientists initially thought that the SAO caused this, but turns out it did not. The SAO changed but the Antarctic loss still continues. The big problem here is not much past data to go on due to being so remote.
However, if the polar regions are a "bell weather" then this is something to be interested in on how our planet is currently. Will be good to watch how it progresses.
The Antarctic was always increasing in sea ice extent over the last few years compared to the Arctic which has a general drop over the last few years. Both are different. the Arctic is bound by land over much of it's freeze and melt season, the Antarctic is not, and has a global ocean going around it, so very different for how sea ice expands and contracts over a season.
The interesting thing is that the Antarctic expanded rapidly in sea ice extent in the early 2010's and now has reallysunk back recently. Polar scientists initially thought that the SAO caused this, but turns out it did not. The SAO changed but the Antarctic loss still continues. The big problem here is not much past data to go on due to being so remote.
However, if the polar regions are a "bell weather" then this is something to be interested in on how our planet is currently. Will be good to watch how it progresses.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff